Kerala Court August 2003 Judgments
State of Kerala Vs. Joy
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker67; 2003(3)KLT786
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Matter has been placed before us since balance court fee has not been paid by the State of Kerala. This appeal was filed on 7.8.2002 and was finally heard by us on 26.6.2003. Appeal was partly allowed and the judgment and decree was modified. When the appeal was filed the court fee payable was Rs. 11,408/-. State paid one-third of the court fee. Balance court fee payable at that time was Rs. 7,605/-. State paid an amount of Rs. 3,934/-. Since there is deficiency in paying balance court fee of Rs. 3,671/- this matter has been posted before us for appropriate orders directing the State Government to pay balance court fee.2. Learned Government Pleader Sri. K.L. Joseph submitted that the State is not bound to pay the balance court fee in view of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2003. The Act came into force en 6.3.2003. A new provision 73A was inserted after Section 73 which reads as follows:'73A. Special provision regarding suits, a...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Vs. Mohammedkutty
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker28; 2003(3)KLT803
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant. Appeal has been preferred against the decree for money. Matter was posted before us for curing defect. Registry noted that the balance court fee of Rs. 10,386/- has not been paid. Suit valuation is Rs. 2,30,400/-. Court fee payable is Rs. 15,580/-. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he is not interested in prosecuting the matter and that the appeal may be rejected for non-payment of court fee. Question that arises for consideration is whether in such a circumstance the appellant is entitled to get refund of the entire court fee.2. The counsel for the appellant brought to our knowledge a Single Bench decision of this Court in South India Wire Ropes Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2003 (2) KLT 668. In that case revision petition was filed against the order in R.A. No. 44 of 2001 in O.S. 514 of 2000 of II Addl. Sub Court, Ernakulam. Plaintiff preferred an application for return of 1/10th court fee. Balance court fee was not pai...
Tag this Judgment!Lillykutty Vs. Lawrance
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC130; 2003(3)KLT721
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in A.S. No. 311 of 2002 which arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 375 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. Suit was instituted for realisation of money based on two dishonoured cheques. Claim petitioners are the appellants in E.F.A.No. 51 of 2002 which arises out of the order in E.A.No. 32 of 1999 in O.S. No. 375 of 1993 of the same court.2. Plaintiff's case is that defendant while conducting a stationary shop by name M.F. Stores approached him and requested for a loan of Rs. 2,25,000/-. Since defendant was personally known to the plaintiff, he paid the said amount to the defendant on 6.3.1992. Defendant in turn handed over two cheques one dated 10.12.1992 for Rs. 1 lakh (Ext. A4) and another dated 2.3.1993 for Rs. 1,25,000/- (Ext. A3). The two post-dated cheques were issued by the defendant on the undertaking that those cheques could be encashed on the dates shown therein. Defendant also agreed to pay inter...
Tag this Judgment!Anappara Karinkallu Thozhilali Sahayam Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Many
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KLT189; (2004)ILLJ1115Ker
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. A co-operative society is the appellant. Only, the granite quarry workers are the members of the society. The society gets, on lease, quarries for quarrying. Willing members are employed for quarrying work. The remuneration is paid for the work done by the members. These are the admitted position.2. The bye-law of the society provides for payment of gratuity to the worker who retires. The provision in the bye-law is that for the purpose of computing gratuity, one should have worked for 240 days in an year. It will be taken as complete year for computation of gratuity. The first respondent, a member of the appellant-society, retired. He was paid gratuity in terms of the bye-law as aforesaid.3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of gratuity, he moved the Controlling Officer appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') for computation of the gratuity payable to him by the appellant. The Controlling Officer found that, as the workman, first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Chacko Vs. Thomas
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KLT202
ORDERK.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Revision petitioners are the tenants. Second revision petitioner is stated to be the proprietrix of M/s. Velukaran Stores and the first petitioner who is the brother of the respondent-landlord is managing the same.2. For disposal of this case we may refer to the parties according to their status in the Rent Control Petition. Petition for eviction was preferred by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Title of the disputed premises is not disputed. Petitioner had obtained the petition schedule premises as per sale deed No.4786 of 1995 of the Sub Registry Office, Ernakulam. Request was made to the tenants to vacate the premises since he wanted to start a departmental store. Petitioner has no business of his own apart from Matha Metal Agencies of which he is a partner. He has no other source of income. Therefore he wanted to start a business of his own to augment his income.3. Tenant resisted the petition...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. William
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Ker153; [2004]50SCL152(Ker)
A. Kumari Lekshmikutty, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1723/1986 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The plaintiff's father was the Estate Officer of former Bank of Cochin Ltd. He leased out his building situated in a remote rural area to M/s. Bank of Cochin Ltd. as per Ext. B1 lease deed dated 1-7-1976. The monthly rent fixed was Rs. 300 and the period was 20 years. As per the terms of the lease, the parties are not entitled to terminate the tenancy. It was also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1296 per annum for the defaulted payment. Later the Bank of Cochin Ltd. was amalgamated with the State Bank of India as per Section 45(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Accordingly the rights and liabilities of the Bank of Cochin Ltd. were taken over the defendant Bank. The defendant Bank kept the rent in arrears from the month of April 1986. The branch manager sent a notice to the plaintiff o...
Tag this Judgment!CochIn Steamer Agents Association Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT946; (2004)ILLJ617Ker
A.K. Basheer, J.1. Does the appellant-Association of Steamer Agents come within the purview of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948? This is the short question in this appeal under Section 82 of the Act, which has been referred to the Full Bench. First, the facts.2. The appellant is a registered Association consisting of Steamer Agents functioning in the Cochin Port. The appellant-Association has 57 Steamer Agents as members on its roll. The ships/steamers which visit the Cochin Port require services of Steamer Watchmen to do 'watch and ward duty'. Earlier the services of Steamer Watchmen were made available to the ships/Steamers by 'Watchmen Contractors'. In the year 1981, the labour unions raised a dispute regarding the service conditions of the Steamer Watchmen who were employed through the contractors. A conciliation meeting was convened by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Ernakulam. Representatives of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Cochin and the Cochin Chamber of...
Tag this Judgment!Vysali Chemotherapeutics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Ker)306; [2004]269ITR362(Ker)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the brand name in respect of eight items of medicines sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs to M/s Vysali Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. is exigible to capital gains tax under the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act).2. Assessee is the appellant. The assessment year is 1992-93, the relevant accounting period ended 31st March, 1992. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year, the assessee sold the 'brand name' in respect of eight items of medicines to a sister-concern by name M/s Vysali Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. The AO wanted to assess the said amount to tax by resorting to the provisions of Section 55(2) of the Act. The said provision, as it stood at the relevant time, provided that for the purpose of Sections 48 and 49 'cost of acquisition' in relation to a capital asset, being goodwill of a business, in the case of such acquisition by the as...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Vs. Balan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT1165
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Landlord is the writ petitioner. First respondent tenant filed an application under Section 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act complaining that the landlord is not carrying out the periodical repairs and maintenance to the building though the same was requested by the tenant. Accommodation Controller referred the matter to the Village Officer, Edakkad for verification and report. Village Officer pointed out that the tenant is conducting business in the petition schedule building E.P.XII/195, 196 of Edakkad Panchayat and that the building requires urgent repairs especially due to ensuing monsoon season. Accommodation Controller directed the landlord to carry out the repair and maintenance to the building within 15 days from the receipt of the said order. It was further ordered that on failure to carry out the said work within the stipulated time the tenant could repair the building at his own cost and the same could be adjusted towards re...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Vs. Venu
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Aug-27-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KLT928
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. The first and second respondents in O.P.6039/92 together and third respondent separately and an another interested person with leave, have filed these appeals against the judgment in O.P.6039/92. The said Original Petition was filed by twenty persons, who were engaged in fishing using stake nets, when their applications for licences, have been rejected by the second respondent stated to be relying on extraneous reasons and without considering relevant aspects in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules for the Management and Control of Fisheries in Government Water Rules, 1974 framed under Section 18 of the Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act, 1950. It was urged before the learned Single Judge by the State and other respondents in the O.P. that certain experts committees had been constituted by Government and the said committees had given reports to regulate the grant of licence for china nets and stake nets. Such reports also had to be taken note of. But the learned single Ju...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »